Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Hearing Ab Dismissal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court finds no viable constitutional claim for alleged assailant AB and dismisses AB matter
Summary
In the companion case to PV, the Court of Claims judge found the allegations against AB do not state a viable constitutional or statutory claim and denied leave to amend as futile, effectively ending AB's claims in the Court of Claims.
A Michigan Court of Claims judge ruled that the complaint filed on behalf of the minor labeled AB does not present a viable constitutional or statutory claim and that leave to amend would be futile, ending AB's case before this court.
The court said the pleadings label AB as the assailant and noted the complaint contains no factual allegations tying the constitutional violations to state actors; the judge found the allegations insufficient to support claims under the state analogs of the Fourth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. "I do not find any viable constitutional or statutory claims that could exist in this case," the judge said on the record.
Why it matters: the court contrasted AB’s pleading posture with PV’s. For AB the court concluded there was no basis for unreasonable seizure, cruel or unusual punishment, or deprivation of due process as pled. Under MCR 2.116(I)(5) the court denied leave to amend as futile and concluded the matter cannot proceed in the Court of Claims.
What the parties argued: defense counsel argued AB’s allegations were volitional acts by the assailant herself and thus not attributable to the department; defense also raised timeliness and verification arguments under the Court of Claims Act for some official‑capacity claims. Plaintiffs argued the facility used AB as an instrument and alleged follow‑up berating that could be viewed in context as part of a pattern; the court found that context insufficient in AB’s case.
Next steps: the judge indicated he will issue written orders; defendants may pursue any permitted steps, including appeal of the AB ruling. Several individual defendants remain subject to separate proceedings in the Wayne County Circuit Court as previously discussed during the hearing.
Attributions: quotations and descriptions come directly from courtroom record. The judge’s name is not stated on the transcript; Scott Rockman argued for the department and Stacy Hinolet argued for plaintiffs.
